Religion is a Mental Illness

@fairisfairquitwhining

So, when O.J. Simpson was found “not guilty” then we are stating for certain that he is absolutely 100% innocent and had no involvement whatsoever? Because that’s the “isn’t.” Bizarrely curious, then about that whole Wrongful Death trial thing... 

So, when I tell you that there’s an even number of jellybeans in this jar, without telling you why or how I could know that, do you believe me? If you don’t, then you’re declaring that there’s an odd number, right?

And when I tell you that your partner has cheated on you, without giving you any evidence or reasons or any way I could know it, and you don’t believe me, then you’re declaring for all the world to hear that your partner has definitively not cheated on you.

Wow, it’s almost like if a claim is not substantiated, then we simply discard it, instead of inserting something else.

Do you logic at all?

Rejecting one claim does not mean committing to a different claim. Especially since your claim (your specific god exists) is in competition with many others. You don’t get to irrationally railroad something I haven’t even said. I can accept or reject claims on their merits without asserting or accepting an alternate or opposite claim.

There is a reason a jury verdict is “guilty” or not guilty. And “not guilty” is not the same as “innocent.”

The opposite of “I believe in X” is “I NOT-believe in X,” not “I believe in NOT-X.”

If “you cannot prove god” then you’re admitting that your belief is irrational, by definition. We don’t accept claims as being “true” until they’re demonstrated as such. You believe without any good reason. No evidence, no method or mechanism to gain any evidence, no way of evaluating any data you may obtain. A “god” itself could demonstrate its own existing by simply introducing itself. If it cannot prove its own existence, then just like Xenu and Ba’al, it is indistinguishable from not being there at all, and you have no good reason for making any kind of existence claim. Your belief is literally irrational and baseless.

On the other hand, I have no belief, and with very good, well-substantiated reason: no evidence.

Non-existence is a separate claim. One I don’t need to make, because like “guilty” and “not guilty,” the default position (the Null Hypothesis - maybe go look that up), given the many competing ideas of various deities, not to mention supernatural creatures, is that we don’t accept any of them until one or more of them meets their burden of proof. Because I don’t have to disprove what you have never proven.

So, who is the more reasonable? The main thing we’ve learned is that there are very good reasons for you to get better beliefs.

Just because you say “you can only believe in is and isn’t” doesn’t make that true. I don’t believe you on that either. And just because you say “atheism is a belief” doesn’t make that true either, especially when it doesn’t follow logic.

What an “us vs them,” black and white mentality you seem to live in. Because there is something called “unconvinced.” You have failed at your burden of proof (by not even trying), and you have failed to make even this weak little point.

Simple as that.